Letters

To the Editor:

John B. King’s “pronomian model” for mixing the two kingdoms, “Toward a Conservative Lutheran Social Ethic,” vol. 1, Issue 3 (Spring 2022), is the very antithesis of Reformation Lutheran theology. It is an imagined “Lutheran social ethic” being contrary to St. Paul’s teaching that no one is pronomian, no one loves the law, no one is moral or ethical. Paul writes, “No one is righteous, no, not one; no one understands, no one seeks for God. All have turned aside, together they have all gone wrong; no one does good, not even one” (Romans 3:1012, RSV). “Using the law as an ethical standard” totally undermines the gospel and is the very definition of free will. If we can be pronomian, who needs Christ? “Christ is the end of the law” (Romans 10:4, RSV).

His assertion that “a separation of church and state does not entail a separation of Bible and state,” shows his unfamiliarity both with Luther’s Sachsenspiegel and Article XVI of the Apology which states, “The gospel does not legislate for the civil estate,” is not “something external, a new and monastic form of government,” but only “brings eternal righteousness to hearts, while it approves the civil government.”

Luther underscored the point to Robert Barnes in 1531 on the question of applying biblical law to the secular court of Henry VIII. “If we are forced to observe one law of Moses, then by the same reason we also ought to be circumcised, and ought to observe the whole law, as Paul argues in Galatians 5. Now, however, we are no longer under the law of Moses, but are subject in these matters to the laws of the state” (LW 50.34). That is, we interact with the state via our civitas, not as Christians.

Luther further declared the mixing of the two kingdoms to be demonic alchemy, saying in his exposition of Psalm 101, “Constantly I must pound in and squeeze in and drive in and wedge in this difference between the two kingdoms, even though it is written and said so often that it becomes tedious. The devil never stops cooking and brewing these two kingdoms into each other. The false clerics and schismatic spirits always want to be the masters, though not in God’s name, and to teach people how to organize the secular government. Thus the devil is indeed very busy on both sides, and he has much to do. May God hinder him, Amen!” (LW 13.194-195)

Günther Bornkamm rightly warned, “Once the message of justification has been displaced from the middle and has sunk to becoming a matter of course and a concern of pious inwardness, the search begins for a metaphysical foundation for political service, a general synthesis of the kingdom of Christ and the empire, and the myth of the world-ruler reappears in Christian form, albeit as a bad copy. But Jesus Christ does not let himself be subjected to this metaphysical alliance with Caesar. Therefore, the question to the church is especially this: whether it decides, as the Apostle Paul, to know nothing other than Jesus Christ, the crucified (1 Cor. 2:2); that means to deliver the word of reconciliation, and nothing else.” (Early Christian Experience, p. 24-25).

Pastor Kristian Baudler St. Luke’s Lutheran Church of Bay Shore, NY and Prince of Peace Lutheran Church, Brentwood, NY

----------------------------------------------------

Dr. King Responds…

Pastor Baudler takes issue with my central claim that Christians should use God’s law as a norm for judging and formulating public policy. In response, let me begin with a concrete example to illustrate my thesis. In terms of public policy, I believe that abortion is the unlawful killing of an innocent child and is thus prohibited by the fifth commandment against murder. For this reason, I further believe that Christians should use every legal means to make abortion illegal. Does Pastor Baudler believe this too? Would Martin Luther believe this? He seems to think that Luther would not. To this end, he quotes Luther as saying that to use even one commandment would put the state under the entire Mosaic law. However, this is not what Luther says in the Large Catechism:

This much is certain: those who know the Ten Commandments perfectly know the entire Scriptures and in all affairs and circumstances are able to counsel, help, comfort, judge, and make decisions in both spiritual and temporal matters. They are qualified to be a judge over all doctrines, walks of life, spirits, legal matters, and everything else in the world (LC, Preface, 17).

Baudler also accuses me of mixing the two kingdoms, even though I take pains to separate them along institutional lines. Against me he quotes Article XVI of the Apology, “The gospel does not legislate for the civil estate. . .” However, this proves nothing since Melanchthon believed that civil law already embodied the Decalogue through natural reason (AP, IV, 7, 8, 34).

He further states that using the law as an ethical standard is the very definition of free will. But he fails to notice that I use the law as a standard of civil righteousness, not as a basis for works-righteousness. If memory serves me correctly, civil righteousness is something of which we are capable. Baudler reminds us that Christ is the end of the law. However, since Christ’s kingdom has not yet dawned in its eschatological fullness, we still need civil laws to preserve order. Why then can’t we use the fifth commandment to stop the slaughter of unborn children?

Finally, Baudler’s approach is both antinomian and legalistic since he turns the gospel into a negative law (legalism) that prevents us from using God’s law for ethical purposes (antinomianism).